Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin (Account/Technical Issues)  |  Contact Global Moderator
October 28, 2021, 06:13:01 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
 1 
 on: Today at 05:47:51 AM 
Started by Pete Fardell - Last post by DavidJP
There you are - your customers await!  Excuses = procrastination!

 2 
 on: Today at 05:44:17 AM 
Started by mick66 - Last post by DavidJP
Monique, who introduced me to the gentleman seemed to think so - can’t remember who he is now.  I do have a bit more hair - on my head.

 3 
 on: Today at 05:20:56 AM 
Started by ekram - Last post by ZK-AUD
Krispy kreme donut box window

 4 
 on: Today at 04:04:57 AM 
Started by ekram - Last post by ekram
Does anyone know a supplier where I can get cellophane for windows? Thanks.

 5 
 on: Today at 03:12:11 AM 
Started by DerekMc - Last post by Russ Lister
..... enough time has passed for another cookup along the same lines?

Here's my Powermouse back in 2006

https://youtu.be/bL9Ag3MWJHo

 6 
 on: Today at 03:06:56 AM 
Started by DerekMc - Last post by Russ Lister
Look forward to it, Lurker .... David Deadman plans always catch my eye.
I ran a cookup on SFA many years ago for 'scaled down classics' .... I really enjoy this kind of model.
I built a 'Powermouse' version of Sal Taibi's Powerhouse ... that makes a lovely little model too.

 7 
 on: Today at 02:25:00 AM 
Started by billdennis747 - Last post by Squirrelnet
What a pretty pre-war aircraft, Tom's flys very nicely too.

I think the one Tom Hallman has modelled is this one - Mitsubshi 1MF1 Type 10-1

http://wp.scn.ru/en/forum/in_focus/1268-65-6

The closest photo I can find the aircraft is this one

https://aviationsmilitaires.net/v3/kb/aircraft/show/4141/mitsubishi-1mf1

 8 
 on: Today at 01:44:17 AM 
Started by rederfi - Last post by TheLurker
Quote from: Konrad
Going one step further one can import real airfoils rather than redrawing...
Yes, you can even write your own software to generate the section files,  If you poke around in the gallery you will find an example complete with a library of ready-rolled sections, but if you're after "originality" then tracing it is.

Quote from: Konrad
But to redraw a set of plans for a one time laser cut is counter productive by any measure of ones time.
Is it?  Depends entirely on your motives and requirements, it's the sort of thing I'd do.  Anyone thinking that doing something "by computer" will save him or herself time is mistaken.  The time saving is made by others who use the results of your efforts.

Quote from: Konrad
It takes an inordinate amount of time to develop a nice clean set of cut files. ... bulkheads ...highly unlikely that you will see a set of cut files given away or even sold
Sorry, but a clean set of files will not take an inordinate amount of time, especially for an established and proven design.  Bringing a product to market usually involves more than just creating the cut files.  Test builds, repeated test builds for new designs, build notes, packaging, marketing etc. etc.

Bulkheads?  See my point about tapered wings above.  Even better, they're symmetrical so you only need to draw one half and you can copy/paste/flip for the matching half.  No,not slow at all.

Not given away or sold?  Why not?  If you're not running a business why wouldn't you?  People draw up and give away plans all the time, cut files are merely extensions of a plan.

Apologies to the OP for the thread hijack.
Lurk

 9 
 on: Today at 01:16:47 AM 
Started by Little-Acorn - Last post by Olbill
My best Cat 1 WS flight of 2015 (which I believe used 2 grams of rubber and a similar airframe) was 3:30. That was done on 1/15 TSS. I think something in that neighborhood should be possible this year with TSS.

That 3:20 flight probably didn't ever go much above 20'.

 10 
 on: October 27, 2021, 11:31:13 PM 
Started by DerekMc - Last post by ghostler
Plane looks promising, TheLurker. Smiley The Courtesan has a slight resemblance to Keith Laumer's 1/2-A Push Up.

https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=664

https://outerzone.co.uk/images/_thumbs/plans/664.jpg

 11 
 on: October 27, 2021, 08:42:04 PM 
Started by Little-Acorn - Last post by calgoddard
Bill -

I have small quantities of some of the better batches of TAN II rubber that I reserve for personal flying in LPP and A-6 contests.

It is definitely better for indoor flying than any batch of TSS rubber I have used.  For these two indoor classes, I would say that I can get as much as 10% longer flights in a Cat I site, on average, with the same models.

TSS rubber, particularly some of the later batches, seems to yield much higher torque after winding hard compared to TAN II rubber.  Thus TSS rubber is just fine for outdoor flying with F1G (coupe), P-30, FAC models etc. We don't back off winds in outdoor flying for obvious reasons. When I wind an indoor TSS rubber motor hard and back off turns, it doesn't seem to deliver the remaining energy as well as a similarly wound TAN II rubber motor. 

I wish I could quantify this better for you, Brian and Chuck.  I can envision a test set up where a strain gauge is mechanically coupled to a rear hook on a motor stick with a prop.  The motor stick would be mounted to the outer end of an arm whose inner end is pivotally mounted on a tripod. A prop and a wound rubber motor connected between the prop shaft hook and the rear hook would propel the motor stick in circles to simulate air flow during a flight.  The output of the strain gauge would be electrically connected through a suitable interface to a PC and software would display a graph of the torque varying over time.

Rather than spend hours setting up such a test rig, I just let my stop watch be my guide.

As you are well aware, this discussion is moot because the manufacture of TAN II rubber ceased around 2002. Even if you can find it, the per gram price of a good batch of TAN II rubber is very high, and you don't know how it was stored.  I guess some students at Nationals might have access to May 99 TAN II but I think that would be very unlikely.  Proper construction, optimum trimming, building to minimum weight, and optimum winding will likely determine the winner amongst the best WS competitors, and not the batch of rubber. Of course there is always the luck factor in any free flight contest. But as they say, you make your own luck.

In regard to the best best batch of TSS rubber for indoor flying, in my experience 10/05 TSS rubber has produced the longest flights.  In my experience, 9/09 TSS rubber has produced the longest flights outdoors. When flying outdoor models, thermals and wind conditions make a far greater difference than the batch of rubber.

 12 
 on: October 27, 2021, 08:11:30 PM 
Started by DougFunny - Last post by lincoln
If you have a long sanding block, you can probably sand in a reasonably nice taper from 1/16" to 1/32".

 13 
 on: October 27, 2021, 07:15:52 PM 
Started by rederfi - Last post by lincoln
On Outerzone and Aerofred there are some trainer plans that I think are in various CAD formats. Also pdf vector, whatever that is. Unfortunately, it's frustrating to find them. Aerofred has an alleged CAD file for the Telemaster 400, though IMHO it's a bit small unless kept light enough for a motor smaller than a Speed 400. Outerzone supposedly has a CAD file for the RCM Trainer. I think that one might be a bit heavy and fast, though my guess is that it would be fine if lightened up enough. I'm sure their are others, but it would take work to find them.

Any reason you don't want to build a kit? There are some decent ones out there. If time, money, and emotional investment don't matter, Sig's Kadet Senior is really easy to fly. But I bet they do. Maybe the smaller one is good. An electric motor in their Riser might make a good trainer. Their LT planes, which I've seen, but not flown myself, are probably good. Their Kadet Mark II, IMHO, is a bit heavy and fast, but might be good if put on a diet or in windy areas. I don't know if you can get them any more, but I remember Great Plane's PT 40  and Goldberg's Eaglet 50, which I built and flew myself, as good trainers. I'm not really up on the latest, though, because I haven't been training many power fliers lately.

 14 
 on: October 27, 2021, 05:44:21 PM 
Started by billdennis747 - Last post by Indoorflyer
Hasn't been mentioned, but in case other interested readers would like a copy of Tom's plan, it is in the HPA Plan Gallery:

https://www.hippocketaeronautics.com/hpa_plans/details.php?image_id=11248&mode=search


(He also posted a link in the YT video description--on his studio website)

 15 
 on: October 27, 2021, 05:32:18 PM 
Started by mick66 - Last post by mick66
Lol yeah ... but do you look like your avatar there ?

 16 
 on: October 27, 2021, 05:28:16 PM 
Started by JeffS_NC - Last post by JeffS_NC
Just a quick update. Got my scales in finally, got them calibrated, put the 99% complete fuse on it, and I get a weight of 8.471 grams. Figure that isn't too bad being 1 1/8" square, 28" long, and all 3/32" concrete. Er... Balsa. Now if I can find my stupid card for the camera, I will take a few more pictures. Just need to make up a nose block and pit the aluminum snuffer tube in it, and then I will double check the overall weight. Now to start cutting out some wing ribs!

 17 
 on: October 27, 2021, 04:58:44 PM 
Started by rederfi - Last post by Konrad
Going one step further one can import real airfoils rather than redrawing what is on the plans (often originally drawn around a Florsheim size 12 shoe by the kids working for firms like Comet models).

But to redraw a set of plans for a one time laser cut is counter productive by any measure of ones time.  (I can cut out a set of parts in less time with an optically driven #11 blade). It takes an inordinate amount of time to develop a nice clean set of cut files. Just take a look at how slow it is for a new kit to come from guys like Dave Cowell of DPC Models.
http://dpcmodels.homestead.com
These files have a lot more than just the OEM airfoils. They also often have improvements to the parts like the fuselage bulkheads and plans. With the amount of time it take to generate this level of quality in a cut file, it is highly unlikely that you will see a set of cut files given away or even sold!

 18 
 on: October 27, 2021, 04:47:20 PM 
Started by billdennis747 - Last post by Pete Fardell
Another nice page showing some of the different Mitsubishi biplanes: https://japanese-aviation.forumotion.com/t59-03-january-21-1922-to-july-26-1926
They really are rather pretty.

 19 
 on: October 27, 2021, 03:03:58 PM 
Started by rederfi - Last post by TheLurker
Quote from: Konrad
This is still a lot of work (read hours of work).
Nahh.  It's not that bad.  If you're just after a set of ribs and formers you can knock out the file for those in an evening*, perhaps two.   Depends a bit on the model.  A constant chord wing is easy, trace one rib and copy/paste as many times as required.  Tapered wings? Trace the largest rib and use the scaling tool to shrink each one in turn.  Once you've got the knack of it, it's not that slow.

Tracing and cleaning up a whole plan is a bit more time consuming. That can take a good long while depending upon how scruffy the original is.

Cheers,
Lurk

*My evenings for aeromodelling purposes are about 1.5 to 2 hours long.

 20 
 on: October 27, 2021, 02:51:44 PM 
Started by rederfi - Last post by Konrad
Don't most drawing programs allow you to put a transparent sheet (layer) over another layer (pdf, jpeg, etc.) to allow this kind of "tracing". But in the end it is still up to you the user to trace with vectors (Bezier curves or other vector tools). This is still a lot of work (read hours of work). I'm not aware of any click conversion of a bit map to vector output program. My laser will cut a jpeg drawing if it the lines are one pixel wide. Adobe illustrator and Coral Draw does this without the issues associated with most open sourced code (read few undocumented bugs).

 21 
 on: October 27, 2021, 02:51:42 PM 
Started by DerekMc - Last post by TheLurker
I should really be working out how to rescue the Wreck of the Hesperus (aka the Pichiatello/Ju87), but the free plan in this month’s issue of the Parish Magazine, a CO2 powered 12” span Vic Smeed Courtesan, caught my eye and I thought, “I wonder if you could make a rubber powered version of one of those?”  So, breaking out the traditional back of the f a g packet I did some sums.

If a Keil Kraft Elf weighing 15g inc ballast with a wing area of 33 sq. in will fly for 40+ s ROG on 16” x 3/32” x 2, what would be a target weight for a rubber powered μCourtesan at the same wing loading with wing area of about 26 sq. in?  Hmm, 12g.  Not impossible then, difficult (for me) certainly, but not utterly impossible with carefully chosen 1/20” stock and other weight reducing measures.

It looks as though I can cram a 15” (3 x 5”) motor in so that would give a safe (Don Ross 80% max) limit of 1,300 turns which might, if it flies, give it an endurance of 30s+. I’d take that.  Of course I’m stuck with a 4” prop which might not have enough bite, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Now you know me, if there’s work to be made I’ll make it so I’ve been working up my version of David Deadman’s version of Vic Smeed’s original and all being well I’m going to make a start this weekend.  Had to tinker with the front end a bit to lose that heavy sheet nose and the nose block shape is adapted for rubber.

  It doesn’t really warrant a build thread so I’ll post the odd progress report, if there is any, here.

And if it doesn’t fly?  Well, I’ll have had fun making it and we’ll all know not to bother in future.

 22 
 on: October 27, 2021, 02:17:05 PM 
Started by Prosper - Last post by kaintuck
Just a neat way to build model!...REAL panel lines, not inked on Shocked
I have a few more years of stick n tissue to build, but I DO want to try your method of molded panels...
marc

 23 
 on: October 27, 2021, 02:05:20 PM 
Started by Little-Acorn - Last post by bjt4888
Bill,

Thanks. The wing and flying surfaces in the foreground were built by one of my students that attended the Indoor Nats in Pontiac this last Summer. He flew LPP and CLG at the Nats. Since hes's an experienced builder now, he's a little ahead of the others. All the students did a nice job so far though and two are complete newbies.

Wow, seems like pretty low pitch on your prop. I'm guessing the flaring is pretty soft maybe.

Thanks again for the great design and flying data. We have our first flying day on November 7.

Brian T.


 24 
 on: October 27, 2021, 02:05:15 PM 
Started by Pete Fardell - Last post by Russ Lister
A good thing to come out of this thread .... I've remembered where I put a stash of props.
Peck prop envy, Pete?  Roll Eyes

 25 
 on: October 27, 2021, 01:36:53 PM 
Started by Prosper - Last post by Prosper
Now the wing fillet panels are fixed to the fuselage, with an attempt to have them raised fractionally above the fuselage panels to represent the overlap of the original.

In side-elevation, the top line of the rear fuselage lifts slightly where it joins the fin. For me, this peaky bit at the back means that once the rear fuselage skins are glued together on the mould, the mould cannot be freed from the fuselage shell. The taper of the rear fuselage dictates that the mould must be tapped out from the back, but the peaky bit will rip open the top decking. Thus a loose component at the back of the mould, which drops away when the mould is tapped out. To accommodate this peaky bit, the top decking panel has to be slit at the back, and so it splays out when the skin is bound to the mould. One little task today was to glue a wedge of balsa aliphatic sheet into the gap. It still needs a quick bit of sanding to fair it with the tailfin.

The mould also appears to be trapped in the tail section once the skin panels are all joined together, but the tail section and fin are separate components, so the lower part can be tapped free from behind, whereupon the fin part drops free.

Stephen.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!